Hendrik Block v. Vartanian et al, No. 1:2016cv00650 - Document 55 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 53 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/13/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 HENDRIK BLOCK, Plaintiff, 13 14 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 15 16 17 18 19 Case No. 1:16-cv-00650-LJO-SKO (Doc. No. 53) GARY CHRISTIAN; BONNIE M. CHRISTIAN; AMANDA FLOREZ dba PUBLIC AUCTION R US, Defendants. _____________________________________/ 20 21 On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff Hendrik Block (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for attorney’s fees, 22 costs, and litigation expenses against Defendants Gary Christian, Bonnie M. Christian, and 23 Amanda Florez dba Public Auction R Us (collectively “Defendants”). (Doc. 51.) On November 24 13, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that 25 Plaintiff be awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $25,492.50 (54.90 hours at $325 per hour 26 and 25.5 hours at $300 per hour), paralegal fees in the amount of $3,782.00 (23.2 hours at $115 27 per hour, 6.3 hours at $115 per hour, and 4.1 hours at $95 per hour), and costs of suit in the 28 amount of $5,673.94. (Doc. 53.) Those findings and recommendations were served on all parties 1 appearing in this action and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty2 one (21) days after service. (Doc. 53.) 3 On December 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 4 (Doc. 54.) Plaintiff objected, first, to the magistrate judge’s finding that the reasonable hourly rate 5 for Plaintiff’s lead counsel, Zachary M. Best, Esq., is $325 per hour, rather than the requested rate 6 of $350 per hour. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff further objected to the magistrate judge’s reduction in the 7 time Plaintiff’s lead counsel, Mr. Best, purportedly expended on the motion for attorney’s fees. 8 (Id. at 4.) To date, Defendants have filed no objections, and the time for filing objections has 9 passed. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 11 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds 12 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.1 13 Accordingly, 14 1. 15 The findings and recommendations (Doc. 53), dated November 13, 2017, are adopted in full; 16 2. 17 Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $25,492.50, paralegal fees in the amount of $3,782.00, and costs of suit in the amount of $5,673.94. 18 3. This action is closed. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 21 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ December 13, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court notes that “Plaintiff acknowledges that some reduction of hours [from 33.8 to 15 hours] for the fees application might be warranted.” (Doc. 54 at 4 (emphasis added).) Additionally, it is worth noting that Plaintiff does not address Trujillo v. Lakhani, No. 1:17-cv-00056-LJO-SAB, 2017 WL 1831942, at *8 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2017), in which this Court previously rejected the request by Plaintiff’s lead counsel, Mr. Best, for an hourly rate of $350, and instead awarded an hourly rate of $300, on the ground that “only half of Mr. Best’s experience is in representing plaintiffs and defendants in ADA cases.” 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
